Saul Pelayo v. B. Greer

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 2 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SAUL PELAYO, No. 22-15223
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:19-cv-04135-RS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
B. GREER; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Richard Seeborg, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 2, 2023**
San Francisco, California
Before: WALLACE, O’SCANNLAIN, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Saul Pelayo appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment. We
have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review a district court's
summary judgment de novo. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.
2004). We affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Pelayo’s retaliation claims fail as the Appellees’ actions in disciplining Pelayo
for perceived sexual misconduct reasonably advanced a legitimate correctional goal.
See Mauro v. Arpaio, 188 F.3d 1054, 1059 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding that “reducing
sexual harassment of prison employees is a legitimate penological interest”).
Moreover, Pelayo failed to establish that the Appellees acted out of retaliation. See
Wood v. Yordy, 753 F.3d 899, 905 (9th Cir. 2014) (“We have repeatedly held that
mere speculation that defendants acted out of retaliation is not sufficient.”).
Pelayo’s due process claims also fail. Even if there was any procedural error
in Pelayo’s first disciplinary hearing, the prison corrected this error by vacating that
hearing and holding a second disciplinary hearing. See Frank v. Schultz, 808 F.3d
762, 764 (9th Cir. 2015) (holding that a prisoner has no due process claim where
“any procedural error was corrected through the administrative appeal process”).
Nor was Pelayo denied due process when certain witnesses and questions were
excluded during the second disciplinary hearing, as Pelayo has not established how
the excluded witnesses and questions were relevant. See Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425
U.S. 308, 321 (1976) (holding that prison disciplinary officers can exclude irrelevant
evidence and witnesses). Last, Pelayo was not denied due process during the
investigation of his filed grievances, as there is no due process right to “a specific
prison grievance procedure.” Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003).
AFFIRMED.
2